Following reports that President Donald Trump is planning to issue an executive order mandating that classical architectural styles become the nation's defacto architectural motifs, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has issued statement opposing the idea.
1/ The American Institute of Architects issued the following statement today:
“The AIA strongly opposes uniform style mandates for federal #architecture. Architecture should be designed for the specific communities that it serves, ...
— AIA National (@AIANational) February 5, 2020
In a Tweet from the AIA National organization account, the group writes, "The AIA strongly opposes uniform style mandates for federal #architecture," adding that "Architecture should be designed for the specific communities that it serves, reflecting our rich nation’s diverse places, thought, culture and climates."
The statement comes as the architectural community reacts to the yet-to-be-proposed "Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again" executive order from President Trump, a new aesthetic agenda that could rescind the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture directive crafted by former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in 1962 that has guided design for the General Services Administration to great success for decades. The new creative direction would specifically bar "Brutalism" and "Deconstructivism" approaches, and likely, many of the design qualities embraced through the diverse and varied architectural works that the GSA has brought into being during this most recent era.
The AIA's statement in fact makes a case for honoring and learning from the nation's existing set of architectural projects. The group writes, "Architects are committed to honoring our past as well as reflecting our future progress, protecting the freedom of thought and expression that are essential to democracy.”
The planned executive order, which was first reported by Architectural Record, comes as President Trump exerts greater influence over federal building projects through the appointment of a new Architect of the Capitol and selection of new members of the United States Commission of Fine Arts, the design review body that guides the design of federal buildings in Washington, D.C.
20 Comments
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but the AIA still won't boot the Nazis in their ranks.
Who are the Nazis in the ranks of the AIA?
Heather Collins Assoc AIA, look it up.
don't hate; appreciate
ok, maybe he is a nazi
zero surprises from the creature in the White House
agree 100% with the AIA on this.
“Architecture should be designed for the specific communities that it serves, reflecting our rich nation’s diverse places, thought, culture and climates."
Yeah... after all, nothing says “Salt Lake City” like a fifteen story tall white louvered ice cube.
Zing!
Maybe they're going for a salt lick reference.
Bingo!
I'm surprised that it doesn’t mandate mirrors, marble, gold plating, and a huge 'TRUMP' sign emblazoned on all federal buildings.
Just you wait. At the rate his megalomania is going...
Look on the bright side, buddy; they might all have cornices!
the left response (I already see in the NYT) seems to be style doesn’t matter, oh yeah and here are some examples of nice gov buildings. A better response would be to acknowledge the mediocrity of most modern federal buildings, perhaps point out some above average and then drop real knowledge about the best in design. Claiming that’s style doesn’t matter is a cop out — the same kind of gaslighting the right does. What a building looks like is a clue to the care and soul of a building. If you dress like a slob and don’t bathe I’m going to assume you don’t care much about other things
A NYT opinion piece said part of this was about the right being excluded from academia the same way the left is from politics - hence, most public architecture is "liberal" since that's what they teach in the schools. A separate question is how building technology drives appearance - like a double skin facade. The outer skin makes it energy efficient but doesn't invite the public in; it's sort of a mask.
You mean the same way "The Public" read: White Nationalism, doesn't allow non-whites into the country, builds walls, and generally looks askance at "The Other"?
RValu100, sounds like you only design double skin facades that suck. Maybe try harder.
No, the public is not white nationalism. This is not about who is "right". This is about buildings that don't welcome people in.
Who are these, "People", because I keep reading two things about "People", they both don't care, and care a lot about what we're doing. I tend to believe that "People" both like St. Patrick's, and The Salk Institute, that people like the dreadful building by Calatrava, and like their Confederate statues, and going on staycations at Antebellum Plantations.
This is want the "people" like and want. https://www.npr.org/documents/2007/feb/buildings/150buildings.pdf
I can hear the cries now that the general public's opinion on architecture is one that is uneducated, and therefore we as architects as "elevated" thinkers have the necessary task of giving enlightened design. Its a great pitch, but one that is founded in an architects pursuit to be a star.
Are we designing buildings for our portfolio to impress other architects, or are designing buildings that will inspire the general public. Architecture is for the "people," so give the "people" what they want.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.